On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:06:32PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 05:45:31AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c | 7 +++++++
> >> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h | 1 +
> >> libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym | 1 +
> >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> >> index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
> >> --- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> >> +++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
> >> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList *gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
> >> return devices;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
> >> +{
> >
> > g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_CONFIG_IS_DOMAIN_OS(os), NULL);
> >
> > ACK with this added. Is it fine to return NULL when no arch is specified,
> > or would it be better to return something else?
>
> I'm not very sure about returing default values in general since thats
> very much a policy decision and we are not giving any clue to the app
> that we are making the decision for it. Just saying I'm not sure, not
> that I actually have a strong opinion either way.
Returning NULL is the right thing todo IMHO, otherwise as apps read &
update the XML new attributes/elements will unneccessarily get added
to the doc.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list